Maple leaf not allowed on headstones at the National Military Cemetary??

[Hunter]

I just saw a story on the news that surprised me.  It was an interview with a military widow who's husband died earlier this year (the story did not say how), and he is interred at the National Military Cemetary.  She is upset because she is not being permitted to have a maple leaf engraved on the lower half of his headstone.  The reason given was that space on a headstone is reserved for religious symbols only.  She sees it as a double-standard because there is another headstone nearby with a maple leaf on it, but that soldeir was killed in Afghanistan. 

Personally I'm skeptical that it is a double-standard, because I have a hard time believing that they would set policy like that.  But why is this policy in place at all?  It can only be a religious symbol or nothing at all?  I think it is shameful.  I think many people in the military hold their ethos, morality, and other values values developed in the CF of higher importance than their religious beliefs.  And if someone never sets foot in a church but dedicates their life to the service of this country, why should they be prevented from having a maple leaf on the headstone?  I heard a piece on the news this week that something like 150,000 people in Canada listed Jedi as their religion in the most recent census - do they get to put Yoda on their headstone?

I suspect the reason is for a uniformity of the look of the headstones,  but I think that does not pass muster.  The Canadian Military Cemetary at Beny-sur-Mer in Normandy has a wide range of engravings on the headstones.   This does not in any way detract from the uniform look of the headstones, and many of the engravings are touching enough to move you to tears.  The one that stuck with me goes like this - "To the world he was just another one, but to us he was our only son"

I think a more reasonable policy would be to provide a framework of guidelines for engravings other than religious symbols.  As long as it fits within reasonable guidelines, what's the problem?  Maple leafs, regimental crests, or a few words - what could possibly be wrong with that?

 

[exsemjingo]

Higher importance than their religious beliefs?  You've lost me there.  First you post an inflammatory title, then the story seems to be about mere policy matters, and then you say religion is unimportant?  Why is your tombstone more important than your soul?
You are all over the map on this one.

 

[Hunter]

Inflammatory?  How so?  Perhaps it indicates surprise and shock, but I  intended it as such, because I am suprised and shocked.  Surprised and shocked at a policy, and also disappointed that a simple request like a maple leaf on a headstone would be denied.  And the question marks to indicate a question, as asking a full question in the topic title would be too long.  I'm wondering if anyone can offer any insights into why this is the policy is in effect.  And I also think someone who's husband served 30 years deserves a bit better than that. 

You apparently hold different views of religion than I, and so be it. I did not say religion was unimportant.  I said there are those for whom religion is not important.  Many people describe themselves as spiritual, but not religious.  If we've taken Christ out of Christmas and God out of schools for fear someone complaining that they are being harassed by the mention of His Name, then it seems to me that it is a bit of a double-standard.

One of the really neat things about being Canadian is that we are free to hold our own religious beliefs.  That includes the freedom to be skeptical about organixed religion, or to express and/or hold no religious beliefs at all.     I respect your beliefs and you have no right to question mine. 

Finally, I'm sorry you feel ripped off by my choice of subject line.  I realize the 6 seconds of your life it took to load the page, and I realize it wasn't the content you were hoping for.  My bad. But here's a question - if you see this 'mere' policy such a waste of your time to read, why bother responding?  Just to flame me? 

Not surprised.

Officer Candidate in waiting eh - does this mean you are not even IN the military right now? :

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

I am not able to find the news story you're talking about.  Do you have a link?

A picture of what I thought military headstones look like
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/content/feature/85vimy/images/april11_3.jpg

I did some research and found this.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/nmc-cmn/engraph/relatedlinks_e.asp#regulations

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=department/reports/deptaudrep/funeral_burial_aud
Gravemarkers
A military style gravemarker (upright or flat granite, or in certain cases, flat bronze) conforming with the standards of Veterans Affairs Canada may be provided under conditions similar to those that govern funeral and burial assistance. This does not include assistance toward the cost of a privately purchased headstone or the cost of inscribing military service particulars on a previously erected private gravemarker.

I did a search for the "standards of Veterans Affairs Canada" I guess I came up short for the exact regulations. Does anyone here have them?

Here is a picture from the National Military cemetery:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/nmc-cmn/images/gallery/interments/interments-11.jpg

I guess I can see a pattern... humm,  I don't know

 

[Armymedic]

So what you are saying is that someone can not put their Regt crest and a Maple leaf on their tombstone?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Currently, the approved approach is a regimental/corps/branch crest at the top of the stone and one of nine approved religious symbols at the bottom.  The bottom crest may also be another regimental/etc. crest if both occupants of the plot were service members.  The Cemetery deals with the crests and engraving layout approved by DND. 

Hunter, have you tried contacting the cemetery to ask for the regulations?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/nmc-cmn/engraph/contactus_e.asp

 

[niner domestic]

The only news article I was able to find on a widow's fight for a religious symbol on a military headstone was this one from the States:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/13/widows.suit.ap/index.html

Is this the story you were thinking of Hunter?

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

The only news article I was able to find on a widow's fight for a religious symbol on a military headstone was this one from the States:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/13/widows.suit.ap/index.html

Is this the story you were thinking of Hunter?

I saw that story too,  but it is an American matter.  And I think it was about a maple leaf, not a pentagram. (On a side note,  I wonder if we allow it, we likely do) I now want to see the exact regulations around this.  I can get specific details on reimbursement, but not on what is allowed.

 

[Poppa]

I have some insight into this due to my full time job.
The rules are that the only engravings on the tombstone will be regimental insignia, and if desired a symbol of your religious faith.
When a member is intered at the NMC all of this is explained.
There is one exception.
One of our causalities from TFA had mentioned specifically that it was his wish that a maple leaf be engraved on his tombstone, So we did it.

This widow has had the rules explained to her before her husband was laid to rest and it was after she saw the other grave site she tried to have it changed. I don't pretend to understand her grief and I am truly sorry for her loss. However, this does not change things. There has been further incidents that I can't get into on this public forum but what I can say is that this is being looked at by the adults.

Cheers.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Higher importance than their religious beliefs?  You've lost me there.  First you post an inflammatory title, then the story seems to be about mere policy matters, and then you say religion is unimportant?  Why is your tombstone more important than your soul?
You are all over the map on this one.

Sorry buddy looks like your the one who forgot their compass.

To each their own, a maple leaf means a hell of a lot more to me than any religious symbol.
I understand rules are rules are rules, it's just sad that even in death we're bound by whats often silly regulations and rule.  I remember the catholic church telling my family we we're allowed to have our grandfathers ashes because it's against their rules or some crap.

 

[geo]

with respect to the US article on CNN

Stewart, whose husband was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, was rebuffed by federal veterans' officials when she sought approval to affix the pentacle to the Veterans' Memorial Wall in Nevada, but state officials said they would erect a plaque with the symbol.

She posted her wiccan design on the headstone, got nixed on the memorial wall....

With respect to the national cemetary; as poppa has pointed out, if you ask for something ahead of time, pert much anything is possible.... just don't expect us to undo something once you change your mind.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Thank you Poppa,  I knew someone who knew would explain

 

[Hunter]

The story was on the late news on CTV Ottawa last night, and given the lack of coverage by other media outlets, I suspect this was a 'local interest' story combined with a fishing expedition.  I haven't been in touch with the cemetary administrators - I heard about the story last night around 11:30 or so and I've been helping run a cadet biathlon competition all day today.  Besides, being Saturday I doubt anyone would answer the phone even if I did call. 

The soldier's name was CWO William Williamson.  The reporter interviewed his widow as well as a CF spokesperson  - I believe it was one Commander Kelly, but not 100% on the name. 

Based on the responses I have seen here, it would appear that the reporter left some important facts out of the story.  Thanks everyone for the clarification.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I just saw a story on the news that surprised me.  It was an interview with a military widow who's husband died earlier this year (the story did not say how), and he is interred at the National Military Cemetary.  She is upset because she is not being permitted to have a maple leaf engraved on the lower half of his headstone.  The reason given was that space on a headstone is reserved for religious symbols only.  She sees it as a double-standard because there is another headstone nearby with a maple leaf on it, but that soldeir was killed in Afghanistan.

Personally I'm skeptical that it is a double-standard, because I have a hard time believing that they would set policy like that.  But why is this policy in place at all?  It can only be a religious symbol or nothing at all?  I think it is shameful.  I think many people in the military hold their ethos, morality, and other values values developed in the CF of higher importance than their religious beliefs.  And if someone never sets foot in a church but dedicates their life to the service of this country, why should they be prevented from having a maple leaf on the headstone?  I heard a piece on the news this week that something like 150,000 people in Canada listed Jedi as their religion in the most recent census - do they get to put Yoda on their headstone?

I suspect the reason is for a uniformity of the look of the headstones,  but I think that does not pass muster.  The Canadian Military Cemetary at Beny-sur-Mer in Normandy has a wide range of engravings on the headstones.   This does not in any way detract from the uniform look of the headstones, and many of the engravings are touching enough to move you to tears.  The one that stuck with me goes like this - "To the world he was just another one, but to us he was our only son"

I think a more reasonable policy would be to provide a framework of guidelines for engravings other than religious symbols.  As long as it fits within reasonable guidelines, what's the problem?  Maple leafs, regimental crests, or a few words - what could possibly be wrong with that?

With all the stuff in various forums and threads around here, regarding the press and journalists and their personal agendas, I figure you would have had a jaundiced eye on the matter from the get go. So much for 'go figure'. In future, before you go off on a tear, ranting at the world about injustice, as the press percieves it, gather your facts. Ask a simple question, backed by references and sources, and we'll try sort it. Normally, there's some simple, underlying explanation, that will clear things up. Just like you got from Poppa. Not to centre anyone out, but a good lesson for all.

 

[Hunter]

With all the stuff in various forums and threads around here, regarding the press and journalists and their personal agendas, I figure you would have had a jaundiced eye on the matter from the get go. So much for 'go figure'. In future, before you go off on a tear, ranting at the world about injustice, as the press percieves it, gather your facts. Ask a simple question, backed by references and sources, and we'll try sort it. Normally, there's some simple, underlying explanation, that will clear things up. Just like you got from Poppa. Not to centre anyone out, but a good lesson for all.

1.  I apparently do not spend as much time on army.ca as you, and do not spend my day poring over every topic.  And this bit about you 'figuring' that I would be jaundiced, you've never met me so why do you presume to form any opinion on how I should think?

2.  'Go figure' was not related to the cemetary issue - it was a sidebar saying I'm impressed with the quality of the people in the CF.  Even you recceguy. 

3.  With regards to gathering facts, it was the first time I saw the story, and my post was intended to put it out there in order to gather facts.  As for my opinion on how this woman was treated, that's why this application is called a 'discussion forum'.  I've read a lot of your postings and you are a very articulate guy with good insights on a wide range of topics.  How about discussing the issue instead of attacking the poster.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not attacking you. Simply saying there was a better way for you to start off the discussion. Perhaps ' caveat emptor' would have been a better adjective than 'jaundice'. Those around here know how the press has a tendancy to twist a story to provide controversy where there really isn't any. As for the amount of time spent here, that's my job

 

[Hunter]

Fair enough, duly noted.    :cheers: